CET 96
DOI: 10.3303/CET2296020
Paper Received: 3 December 2021; Revised: 21 July 2022; Accepted: 10 July 2022
Please cite this article as: Shogenova A., Shogenov K., Mariani M., Gastaldi D., Pellegrino G., 2022, North Italian Ccs Scenario for the Cement
Industry, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 96, 115-120 DOI:10.3303/CET2296020
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS
VOL. 96, 2022
A publication of
The Italian Association
of Chemical Engineering
Online at www.cetjournal.it
Guest Editors: David Bogle, Flavio Manenti, Piero Salatino
Copyright © 2022, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
ISBN 978-88-95608-95-2; ISSN 2283-9216
North Italian CCS Scenario for the Cement Industry
Alla Shogenovaa*, Kazbulat Shogenova, Martina Marianib, Daniela Gastaldic, Guido
Pellegrinod
aTallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
bSapienza University of Rome, Piazzalle Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Roma, Italy
cBuzzi Unicem S.p.A.,Via Monte Santo 10, 13039 Trino (VC), Italy
dItalcementi (ITC-HCG), Via Stezzano 87, 24126 Bergamo, Italy
alla.shogenova@taltech.ee
CO2 transport, storage and monitoring (TSM) cost for the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) scenario was
estimated for Buzzi Unicem Vernasca Cement Plant (BUV СP) and HeidelbergCement Group Italcementi
Calusco D'adda (HCICD) CP, located at 125 and 34 km via pipelines distance respectively from the Malossa
storage site. Total emissions produced in 2020 by two CPs were 1.2 Mt CO2. About 1.1 Mt CO2 captured
annually and 23 Mt during 20 years of the project duration could be transported and stored in the prospective
for CO2 storage 83 m thick Upper Miocene Messinian Sergnano Gravel conglomerate Formation located at 1240
m depth in the Malossa structure. 3D geological static models of the storage reservoir in the Malossa structure
(34 km2 area) were constructed using 18 wells and PETREL software.
Estimated TSM costs were the most economic for HCICD CP (4 €/t CO2 avoided), explained by the close
location to the Malossa storage site and sharing of monitoring costs with BUV CP. TSM cost for BUV CP is
higher (15.1 €/t CO2) explained by the longer pipeline distance (125 km) and the needed CO2 recompression.
Total costs for the CCS scenario will depend on the final costs of Ca-looping CO2 capture at the BUV CP
achieved by the CLEANKER project. The estimated maximum total CCS cost for BUV CP could be 73 €/t CO2
avoided, the maximum CCS cost for HCICD CP is 62 €/t CO2. These costs are already feasible considering 80-
90 €/t CO2 price in EU ETS reached in 2021.
1. Introduction
The main objective of the CLEANKER project was to demonstrate new CO2 capture technology for the cement
industry by developing an integrated Calcium Looping process and constructing a demonstration plant at the
Buzzi Unicem Cement Plant (BUV СP) in Vernasca (Lombardy Region). The objective of this research was to
make a techno-economic assessment of the CO2 transport and storage scenario in the vicinity of the demo plant
at Vernasca Cement Plant (CP) and estimate the feasibility of the full value chain Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS) scenario.
Italy has good options for CO2 geological storage (CGS) in saline aquifers both onshore and offshore presented
by siliciclastic rocks in 14 areas (Donda et al., 2011) and carbonate rocks in 8 areas (Civilie et al., 2013). Most
of the Italian deep siliciclastic saline aquifers are suitable for CGS in various grain-size sands of the Pliocene
age of different thicknesses intercalated with silty to clayey zones. The caprock sealing formations of at least
100 m thick usually consist of late Pliocene–Pleistocene clays (Donda et al., 2011). Regional estimations of
geological parameters of carbonate reservoirs estimated for 8 areas and depleted oil and gas fields in Malossa-
San-Bartolomeo (Civilie et al., 2013) and estimation of regional storage capacity in two Lombardy regions gave
prospects for more detailed studies, which were later made for the Northern Italy (Colucci, 2016).
Recently ENI has run various studies and preliminary evaluations for CO2 injection and monitoring in the
Cortemaggiore field (Piacenza) located only 30 km from the Vernasca CP. ENI has also analysed the legal and
societal aspects linked to the storage site. The injection of 8000 tonnes of CO2 per year was planned over a
three-year period, followed by two years of post-injection monitoring (Rütters et al., 2013).
115
However, these plans were not realised, and the results of the feasibility study made by ENI are yet confidential.
Considering these issues, for the CCS scenario modelling, we have selected a more distant CGS site available
in the Lombardy Region.
Previous studies made in Italy for CGS have determined the potentially suitable reservoir rocks represented by
upper Messinian Sergnano Gravel conglomerate formation sealed by primary cap rocks represented by a
Pliocene Santerno clay formation. Primary cap rocks are covered by the Asti Sand formation and Quaternary
alluvial deposits (Mancini et al., 2010). The Sergnano Gravel formation is the reservoir of almost all gas fields
in the Po River plain, some of which are used now as gas storage fields (Marzorati and Maroli, 2012). CGS is
not permitted in Italy in high-risk seismic areas and should be negotiated in case of available active mining or
hydrocarbon leases and for natural environmental protected sites.
In this research, the CCS scenario was modelled for two cement plants, including BUV CP and
HeidelbergCement Group Italcementi Calusco D'adda (HCICD) CP, which were planned to connect by pipelines
with Malossa structure, selected for CGS. CO2 storage capacity of the structure, project duration, and technical
and economic parameters was estimated for the TSM scenario. The feasibility of the full chain CCS scenario
was estimated using the reference Ca-looping CO2 capture cost (De Lena et al, 2019) and costs planned to be
achieved by the CLEANKER project.
2. Data and methods
All data for the CCS scenario were added to the CLEANKER ArcGIS database. CO2 emissions produced in
2020 and reported in EU ETS were applied (EU ETS, 2021). For the Malossa structure, selected for CGS, data
for 18 old wells were available in a public database (ViDEPI, 2020). Wells were drilled to use the porous
formations for the water disposal produced by the Malossa’s hydrocarbon field. In all the wells geophysical
electric resistivity and spontaneous potential logs (SP) were made. Only in Malossa B well the sonic log was
available, and porosity estimations using the Raymer time-average relation were reported earlier (Colucci et al.,
2016). 2D and 3D static geological models were constructed and populated with porosity using PETREL
Schlumberger software. The calculation of the thickness, area and average porosity of the structure was made
in PETREL (Mariani, 2020). CO2 storage capacity was estimated using an approach described in Bachu et al.,
2008 and proposed by the EUGeoCapacity project (Vangkilde-Pedersen et al., 2009). This method provides the
estimation of the “effective storage capacity” based on the bulk volume, using the following equation:
MCO2 = A ∗ h ∗ NG ∗ φ ∗ ρCO2 ∗ SEff, (1)
where MCO2 is the effective storage capacity; h is the effective thickness; NG is the net to gross ratio. NG was
estimated from ViDEPI database well logs as 50%, because of the high presence of clays in the reservoir; φ is
the average porosity of the reservoir Formation; ρCO2 is CO2 density calculated at the reservoir pressure and
temperature conditions. For the conservative estimates, SEff has been chosen 4%. For the optimistic approach,
SEff was taken 10%, according to “the cartoon approach” described in (Vangkilde-Pedersen et al., 2009).
Building block datasets (EPRI, 2015) were used to estimate costs and performance for pipeline transportation
and CGS. The costs of all CO2 storage and transport elements are calculated in total and for every CO2
producer, proportionally to their CO2 flow. The average cost per tonne of CO2 injected or avoided for the project
duration (20 years) is calculated using formulas reported by EPRI, 2015 and updated for the CLEANKER project
(Shogenova and Shogenov, 2020):
CAPEX/𝑡𝐶𝑂2 =
𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑥𝑇𝑃𝐶+𝐹𝑂𝑀
𝐶𝑂2 𝑖𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
, (€/t CO2), (2); OPEX/𝑡𝐶𝑂2 =
𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑥𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟
𝐶𝑂2 𝑖𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
, (€/t CO2) (3)
MVEX/𝑡𝐶𝑂2 =
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑚𝑣
𝐶𝑂2 𝑖𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
, (€/t CO2), (4); ENEREX/𝑡𝐶𝑂2 =
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦
𝐶𝑂2 𝑖𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
, (€/t CO2) (5)
COSTtotal/𝑡𝐶𝑂2 = CAPEX/tCO2 + OPEX/tCO2 + MVEX/tCO2 + ENERGEX/tCO2; (6)
Total Plant Cost (TPC) = BEC + Decom + interest; (7)
CCR (Capital Charge Rate) is taken as 8% and interest paid during construction is 1.5%. The annual fixed O&M
(Operational and Maintenance cost) is assumed as 1% for pipelines, 2% for wells and 4% for the booster pumps
and storage facilities. Annual onsite operating costs, including design, engineering, environmental assessment,
project/site supervision, management, logistics fees and equipment/project contingencies, are taken 40% from
BEC (Bare Erected Cost), and Decom (Decommissioning Cost) is 25% from BEC. It is considered that Decom
occurs in the two years following the end of the project and may include costs for site remediation and equipment
dismantling (EPRI, 2015).
116
3. CO2 Emission Sources
Vernasca Cement Plant (BUV CP) is owned by Buzzi Unicem, an international cement company working in 14
countries. In Italy, Buzzi Unicem is the second-largest industrial player in the country. BUV CP (Table 1) is
located in a small village Mocomero in the province of Piacenza near Vernasca town, 110 km far from Milano.
Heidelberg Cement Group Italcementi Calusco D’Adda Cement Plant (HCICD CP) has been owned by the
Italcementi Group since the 1920s. In 2016, Italcementi joined the German construction group HCG, becoming
the world's second-largest cement producer. The plant is located in the town of Calusco d’Adda in Northern
Italy, at the base of the Bergamasque Prealps, close to the Adda River, with nearby quarries of marly rock and
limestone providing a supply of raw. HCICD CP is one of the largest cement plants in Europe (Table 1).
Table 1: Clinker and cement produced in 2018 and CO2 produced in 2018–2020 by cement plants
Cement Plant Company Location Clinker
(kt)
Cement
(kt)
CO2 emiss CO2 emissions (kt/yr)
2018 2019 2020
Vernasca Buzzi
Unicem
Emilia
Romagna
575.5
786.1
445.4 504.9 521.8
Italcementi
Calusco D’adda
Heidelberg
Cement
Bergamo
1097
955
903.6 818.9 688.2
4. Malossa Storage Site
The Malossa structure (MS) is located in the central part of the Po Valley in the Lombardy Region of Northern
Italy. The Po Valley subsurface framework resulted from a Mesozoic extensional tectonic phase, followed mainly
by the Tertiary collisional tectonic phase (Bello and Fantoni, 2002). The MS is located between seismic areas
in Northern Italy. For CGS, the potential reservoir is represented by the Messinian Sergnano Gravel
conglomerate Formation (SGF), and primary cap rocks by Santerno Clay deposited during the Pliocene. The
SGF are made mostly of polygenic conglomerates with some interbeds of sand, clay and sandstone. The SGF
has high permeability and porosity, and the salinity of water in the reservoir of about 20 g/l (kg/m3). The high
permeability of SGF is confirmed by numerous injectivity tests. During the exploitation of the Malossa gas-
condensate field, the Malossa A and Malossa B wells were used for the re-injection of production water from
1984 to 1991 with a flow rate of about 2000 m3/day (Colucci et al., 2016). In the Malossa structure, the SGF
lays at a depth of 970–1483 m, the average depth from 18 wells is 1240 m, and the reservoir temperature is
40°C. SGF has a different thickness from a few meters in Malossa 11, 13, and 14 to 212 m in Malossa 2 and
declined in Malossa 5 and 13 wells. The average thickness of 18 wells is 83 m. The porosity in the MS is 12.5-
38% with an average of 26% and average permeability of 400 md (4*10-13m2). 3D geological models of storage
formation constructed in PETREL and populated with porosity data were used for CO2 storage capacity
estimation (Figure 1). It is evident that the model is confined as a stratigraphic trap at the East and North borders.
The Pliocene Santerno Clay Formation (SCF) is composed of clays with quartzitic sand interlayers with
predominantly planktonic fossils, indicating an external platform depositional environment. In the Malossa site,
the thickness of SCF is about 250–710 m, but it is only 62 m thick in Malossa A well. The average thickness of
18 wells in the Malossa structure is 403 m. The average porosity is 6% and permeability is 0.1 md (1*10-16 m2).
Secondary cap rocks are represented by Pleistocene Asti sands and Quaternary alluvial deposits with a total
thickness of 685–1050 m, and an average of 837 m. The total CO2 storage capacity of the MS based on the
conservative approach and average porosity, is 9.91 Mt, while the total CO2 storage capacity based on the
optimistic approach is 24.8 Mt (Table 2). This average optimistic storage capacity will be enough for the storage
of CO2 emissions produced by two studied cement plants for 20 years.
Table 2: Estimated CO2 storage capacity of the Sergano Gravel Reservoir Formation in the Malossa Structure
CO2 storage capacity, Mt
Optimistic Conservative
Min
Max
Average
11.9
37.6
24.8
Min
Max
Average
4.8
15.0
9.9
117
Figure 1: 3-D model of the reservoir top and bottom of the Sergano gravel reservoir in the Malossa structure
(Mariani, 2020)
5. Techno-Economic Modelling of CCS Scenario
BUV and HCICD CPs produced about 1.2 Mt CO2 in 2020. It is possible to capture about 1.1 Mt CO2 annually
and 23 Mt during 20 years of the project duration, considering the limited CO2 storage capacity of the Sergano
Gravel Reservoir Formation with the estimated average optimistic capacity of 24.8 Mt CO2. Considering 5% of
additional emissions produced during CCS operations, only 21.8 Mt of CO2 could be avoided during 20 years
of the project (Tables 1, 3).
The planned CO2 pipeline routes will be constructed along available natural gas pipelines (if available), or roads
(Figure 2). The pipelines will be designed using X70 steel and 1500 lb flange rating (rated to 25.5 MPa upper
working pressure) with a maximum allowable working pressure of 15 MPa. The pipeline diameter was
determined depending on the distance and flow rate of CO2 calculated for the specific scenario (EPRI, 2015).
The annual flow rate for the pipelines from Vernasca and Calusco D'adda CPs is less than 1 Mt per year and
the distance to the storage site is 125 and 34 km, respectively. Therefore, 220- and 180-mm diameter will be
sufficient.
CO2 compression is included in the CPU unit for Ca-looping capture at the Vernasca plant with a pressure of 11
MPa, which is higher than the minimum pressure required for CO2 pipeline transport and injection (8 MPa).
However, due to the estimated possible pressure drop of about 6 MPa, resulting in 5 MPa, during CO2
transportation from Vernasca (125 km), recompression will be needed for this CO2, which will be injected into
the first planned injection well. For the CO2 transported for 34 km from HCG ICD to the second well the
recompression is not applied, considering that after the calculated pressure drop (for about 2.7 MPa, resulting
in 8.3 MPa) the final pressure will be enough for CO2 injection. CO2 injection costs include well drilling, storage
site facilities, pumping and monitoring. In total two injection and two monitoring wells are planned for CO2
storage and monitoring. Coring and logging are included for all four wells.
CO2 TSM cost for this scenario is the most economic for HCICD CP, estimated as 4 €/t CO2 avoided, explained
by close location to Malossa storage site and sharing of monitoring costs with BUV CP. About 34 km of pipelines
along available natural gas pipelines will be constructed from HCICD. CO2 TSM cost for BUV CP is higher (15.1
€/t CO2) explained by the longer pipeline distance (125 km) and the needed CO2 recompression (Figure 2).
The total costs for the CCS scenario will depend on the final costs of Ca-looping CO2 capture at the BUV demo
CP at the end of the CLEANKER project. At the present time, the reference Ca-looping capture cost is 58 €/t
CO2 avoided (De Lena et al., 2019), but could be cheaper for the CLEANKER demonstration plant at BUV CP.
118
Figure 2: CO2 transport and storage scenario from Buzzi Unicem Vernasca and HCG Italcementi Calusco
D'adda cement plants to Malossa storage site in Sergnano Gravel reservoir Formation
Table 3: Total costs for CO2 transport and storage for 20 years project in the Lombardy Region
Cement Plants Vernasca Calusco D’Adda Total for 2 plants
CO2 injected per year, Mt 0.50 0.65 1.15
Total pipeline CAPEX, M€ 34.96 6.87 41.83
Total CAPEX for 4 wells, M€ 5.71 5.71 11.41
Booster CAPEX, M€ 3.53 - 3.53
Storage facilities CAPEX, M€ 0.05 0.05 0.09
BEC (for pipeline, wells
and storage facilities), M€
44.24 12.62 56.86
Decommissioning cost (DC)
25% from TPC, M€
11.06 3.15 14.21
Interest (1.5%) for 2 years of constriction 1.33 0.38 1.71
FOM (annual fixed O&M cost) M€ 0.61 0.18 0.79
TPC (Total Plant Cost), M€ 57.23 16.34 73.56
CAPEX, €/t CO2 injected 10.46 2.28 5.81
OPEX total (40% from BEC), M€ 17.70 5.05 22.74
OPEX, €/t CO2 injected 2.86 0.62 1.58
MVEX (annual monitoring and
verification cost), M€
0.50 0.56 1.06
MVEX, €/t CO2 injected 1.01 0.85 0.92
COSTtotal, €/t CO2 injected 14.32 3.75 8.31
COSTtotal, €/t CO2 avoided 15.1 3.95 8.74
The maximum total CCS cost for Vernasca CP could be 73 €/t CO2 avoided and will be feasible for CO2 price in
EU ETS of about 75 €. However, if the Ca-looping capture cost is 40 €/t CO2 avoided could be reached, then
the CCS scenario will be feasible starting from about 55 €/t CO2 in EU ETS.
6. Conclusions
Economic modelling of the CCS scenario for Northern Italy includes the two largest cement plants with a total
of 1.2 Mt CO2 emissions produced in 2020. It is possible to capture, transport and store 23 Mt CO2 during 20
years of the project into the Malossa structure, considering the optimistic CO2 storage capacity of the Sergano
Gravel Reservoir Formation (24 Mt). Considering 5% of additional emissions produced during CCS operations,
only 21.8 Mt of CO2 could be avoided during 20 years of the project. This scenario demonstrates that a close
location to the storage site (34 km) and sharing of storage infrastructure and monitoring costs with another plant
could result in total low CO2 transport, storage and monitoring costs, which was reached in our scenario for
Italcementi Calusco D'adda CP (4 €/t CO2 avoided). TSM costs are more expensive for Vernasca CP (15.1 €/t
522 Kt/yr CO2
688 Kt/yr CO2
34 km
4 €/t CO2
125 km
15 €/t CO2
HCG Italcementi Calusco D’Adda
Cement Plant
Buzzi Unicem Vernasca Cement
Plant
119
CO2) explained by a four times longer pipeline distance and thereafter needed CO2 recompression. To reach a
more economic scenario for Vernasca CP, it is recommended to use the depleted gas field of the ENI company
located in the Cortemaggiore field (Piacenza) located 30 km from the Vernasca CP and with good options for
CO2 use for the enhanced gas recovery.
The total costs for the CCS scenario will depend on the final costs of Ca-looping CO2 capture at the Vernasca
CP at the end of the CLEANKER project. Although the reference Ca-looping capture cost is 58 €/t CO2 avoided,
it could be cheaper for the CLEANKER demo system at BUV CP. The maximum total CCS cost for Vernasca
CP with the transport and storage into the Malossa site could be 73 €/t CO2 avoided, the maximum CCS cost
for HCICD CP is 62 €/t CO2. These costs are already feasible now considering 80-90 €/t CO2 reached in EU
ETS in 2021-2022. However, if the Ca-looping capture cost of about 40 €/t CO2 avoided will be reached at BUV
CP, and storage will be made at the nearest available Cortemaggiore field, then the CCS scenario for BUV CP
could be feasible starting from about 45 €/t CO2. The same total CCS cost could be reached for Italcementi
Calusco D'adda with storage at the Malossa storage site if the capture cost is 40 €/t CO2. In this case, the lower
TSM cost could be reached by prolonging the project up to 30 years instead of sharing the cost with Vernasca
CP.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by the CLEANKER project, which has received funding from the European Union's
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement n. 764816.
References
Bachu S., 2008, Comparison between Methodologies Recommended for Estimation of CO2 Storage Capacity
in Geological Media by the CSLF Task Force on CO2 Storage Capacity Estimation and the USDOE Capacity
and Fairways Subgroup of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Program, Phase III (Report).
Bello M. and Fantoni R., 2002, Deep oil plays in Po Valley: Deformation and hydrocarbon generation in a
deformed foreland. In Deformation history, fluid flow reconstruction and reservoir appraisal in foreland fold
and thrust belts: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Hedberg Conference, 1–4.
Civile D., Zecchin M., Forlin E., Donda F., Volpi V., Merson B., Persoglia S., 2013, CO2 geological storage in
the Italian carbonate successions. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 19, 101–116.
Colucci F., Guandalini R., Macini P., Mesini E., Moia F., Savoca D., 2016, A feasibility study for CO2 geological
storage in Northern Italy. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 55, 1–14.
De Lena E., Spinelli M., Gatti M., Scaccabarozzi R., Campanari S., Consonni S., Cinti G., Romano M. C., 2019.
Techno-economic analysis of calcium looping processes for low CO2 emission cement plants. International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 82, 244–260.
Donda F., Volpi V., Persoglia S., Parushev D., 2011, CO2 storage potential of deep saline aquifers: the case of
Italy. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5, 327–335.
EPRI, 2015, Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Australian Power Generation Technology Report.
EU ETS, 2021, EU Emission Trading System, assessed 31.05.2021.
Mancini P., Mesini E., Moia F., Guandalini R., Savoca D., 2010, Assessing the underground CO2 storage
potential in a highly populated and industrialized area: the case of Lombardia Region (Italy). In: SPE 133941,
SPE Annual Tech.Conf. and Exhib., Florence, Italy.
Mariani M., 2020, North Italian CCS scenario for the cement industry, Sapienza University of Rome, Tallinn
University of Technology, Master thesis, assessed 30.03.2022.
Marzorati D. and Maroli R., 2012, Stoccaggio di gas naturale nel sottosuolo: aspettigeologici, dinamici e attività
di monitoraggio. Atti del 1◦Congresso dell’Ordinedei Geologi di Basilicata, Ricerca, Sviluppo ed Utilizzo delle
Fonti Fossili: IlRuolo del Geologo, Potenza, 353–361.
Rütters H. and the CGS Europe partners, 2013, State of play on CO2 geological storage in 28 European
countries. CGS Europe report No. D2.10, 1–89.
Shogenova A. and Shogenov K., 2020, Definition of a methodology for the development of a techno-economic
study for CO2 transport, storage and utilization, Deliverable D7.1 of the Horizon 2020 CLEANKER project.
Vangkilde-Pedersen T. and Kirk K. (Eds.), 2009, FP6 EU GeoCapacity Project, Assessing European Capacity
for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide, Storage Capacity. D26, WP4 report Capacity standards and site
selection criteria, assessed 30.04.2022.
ViDEPI, 2020, Visibility of petroleum exploration data in Italy,
accessed 10.08.2020.
120
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/17505836
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/17505836
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/17505836/82/supp/C
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ets/
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ets/
https://digikogu.taltech.ee/et/Item/c5aae902-34b9-4019-be83-15265cae348b
https://digikogu.taltech.ee/et/Item/c5aae902-34b9-4019-be83-15265cae348b
http://www.geology.cz/geocapacity/publications
https://www.videpi.com/videpi/videpi.asp
45shogenova.pdf
North Italian CCS Scenario for the Cement Industry